frepnog:Is this like J4T loonies saying that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher who said "we don't need you to do that" by leaving out the part where he said "ok" and then stopped running?

No, it's like folks thinking that watching and reading everything about a murder trial where one of only two participants is unable to participate because, you know, they're dead makes those same folks magically omniscient, capable of speaking with exact authority as to why poor old George Zimmerman was just defending himself from an angry, giant, drug-dealing maniac of a teenager.

Satan's Bunny Slippers:dumbobruni: notto: no_dice: Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about. However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head. That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents. It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface. It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit? Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

dumbobruni:notto: no_dice: Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about. However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head. That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents. It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface. It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit? Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

Karac:RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about. However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head. That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents. It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface. It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit? Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

You don't understand. Al Gore didn't actually claim to invent the internet. Therefore, it stands to reason that Bo flies regularly on a chartered Sopwith Camel, dog-fighting the Red Baron in an attempt to show Obama as anti-communist. But see, we never SAID he was a communist! He's a socialist! And that's where it all falls apart!

No, what's 'droll' is Moochelle claiming 'Barack isn't going to let you live the way you used to live'. And our precious little king saying that 'other countries aren't going to put up with us driving big cars and keeping our thermostats where we want them'.

It's the same hypocritical bullsh*t with all limousine liberals (especially Gore). Remember Streisand lecturing Americans about hanging clotheslines instead of using electricity to dry clothes? Do you see any clotheslines behind her beachfront mansion?

The Obamas are greedily scooping up all the 'reparations' they can grab between somber speeches about the need for personal sacrifice and how much 'ordinary' Americans are suffering. That's why nobody listens to our 'royal family' anymore.